JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Free Trade: Recipe for Overcoming Covid-19
Brief #86—Economics
By Gwayne Gautreaux
While American-first has been a theme for the Trump administration’s foreign policy, its unintended consequences have certainly restricted the collective response necessary to overcome Covid-19.
The Corruption of Elaine Chao
Brief #19—Corruption Blog
By Sean Gray
United States Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao is responsible for much of the commerce and movement that takes place over federal jurisdiction.
Trump and Putin: A Kremlin Arranged Marriage
Brief #89—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
Unless you’ve had your head buried in the sand for the past month, you have no doubt heard about the controversy surrounding whether Trump had been briefed on intelligence claiming that Russia offered bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan for the targeting and killing of U.S. servicemen.
What Is the Significance of the 32.9% Second Quarter GDP Drop?
Brief #85—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The headline 32.9% drop in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the second quarter is stunning, but what does it actually signify?
Recommended Democratic Party Platform Goals
U.S. Resist News Op Ed
The most important goal in the upcoming presidential election is to win. We need to win the presidency, maintain control of the house, and flip the senate.
Corona Virus Update:The US Death Toll Reaches 150,000
Brief #77—Health
By Taylor Smith
As the coronavirus continues spread, cases are rapidly increasing in in at least 29 states.
The November Election is in Jeopardy and Trump is the Problem
Brief #16—Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
In less than 100 days, Americans will be voting in what is arguably the most important election in our lifetimes.
Trump Deploys Troops to Chicago to Help His Re-Election
Brief #7—Criminal Justice
By Erika Shannon
The Trump Administration has announced a plan to deploy federal agents to several American cities as a part of “Operation Legend” and the so-called “Protecting American Communities Task Force.”
The Corruption of Andrew Wheeler
Brief #19—Corruption Blog
By Sean Gray
The Environmental Protection Agency has a wide range or responsibilities related to human health and conservation.
Richmond Rally Demonstrates Increasingly Militarized Right-Wing Movement
Last Monday, protesters flocked to Richmond, Virginia to oppose the state’s recently passed gun control legislation. Although a recent poll suggests that a majority of Virginians support such laws, over 22,000 people swarmed the capital, some coming from as far away as Indiana and Texas. Many saw the rally as an opportunity to steer the national dialogue on gun control.
Some protesters donned camouflage and semi-automatic weapons. Also in attendance were known hate groups such as the League of the South, the American Guard, and the Proud Boys. Members of the latter wore patches with the acronym RWDS, short for “Right-Wing Death Squad.” Protesters carried Confederate flags and even lynched effigies. Alex Jones, of InfoWars fame, cruised through the rally in a tank. In a recent livestream, he accused Virginia Democrats of attempting to “trigger a civil war.”
Fearing a repeat of the tragedy in Charlottesville, Governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency and temporarily banned weapons from the Capitol. These moves were derided by pro-gun advocates, and Jones went so far as to call Gov. Northam a “liar.” However, just days before the protest, members of a far-right group called the Base were arrested for planning a mass shooting at the event. One of its members wrote that he hoped the attack would spark a “full-blown civil war.”
Analysis
Although mainstream outlets dubbed the event a “peaceful protest,” its tone was anything but. The imagery and rhetoric were unequivocally violent, and true bloodshed was narrowly avoided. Attendees repeatedly invoked the Civil War, and perhaps they were on the mark; if anything had gone wrong at that rally, it would have changed the course of American history.
Moreover, this is the latest entry into a large body of evidence connecting the pro-gun movement with the rising tide of white supremacy. Increasingly, one wonders how many Second Amendment advocates are working out of genuine passion for civil liberties, as opposed to hatred and fear towards people of color. Certainly some protesters were there in good faith, but their voices were drowned out by extremists. As the planned attack by the Base illustrates, there is a non-negligible portion of this movement that’s hoping for genocide.
Equally concerning is the fact that mainstream media outlets glossed over the presence of overt racism and fascism. The presence of these ideologies in the pro-gun movement is too large to be ignored. In fact, it stifles the conversation when we pretend that this debate is solely about the tension between public safety and self-defense. As a nation, we must acknowledge the heart of this issue: our fear of each other, which crystalizes along racial lines.
Photo by Rux Centea
Constitutional Right To Prayer and Religious Expression In Public Schools Remains The Same Despite New Proclamation From President Trump
Policy Summary: On January 16, 2020 President Donald J. Trump issued an update to a 2003 Federal guidance document regarding protected prayer and religious expression in public schools.
The document states that the guidance it is issuing for public schools will “promote equal treatment” for religious organizations and “champion the fundamental right to religious freedom.” Additionally, the guidance will require that “local educational agencies must confirm that their policies do not prevent or interfere with constitutionally protected rights” in order to receive Federal funds and will “help improve individuals’ ability to file a complaint” if they are prohibited at a public school from prayer or religious expression. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While the updated guidance document and the Proclamation declaring January 16, 2020 Religious Freedom Day have generated alot of news about President Trump’s purported support for the role of religion in American public life, a closer analysis of the guidance document shows that it makes no meaningful changes to the current state of American law and policy when it comes to the subject of prayer and religious expression in public schools.
After President Trump’s announcement, many concerned civic groups came forward to express their opposition to the position taken by the Trump Administration. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU), a non – profit group, issued a tweet stating that President Trump wasn’t really protecting the idea of religious liberty but was merely pandering to American religious extremists who are determined to “inject a narrow set of religious beliefs into our public schools.” Rob Boston of AU also wrote a blog post where he said students in public schools have always had the right to pray and express their religion as long as the student’s action does not disrupt class and is voluntary. For President Trump to claim that he will “not allow anyone to push God from the public square” is misleading. There is no effort to push God or religion from the public square. The effort is to uphold the concept of a separation of church and state while allowing personal expressions of religion as long as it is not disruptive to secular activities. By simply re – stating the same principles from the 2003 Federal guidance document in his 2020 Federal guidance document the Trump Administration has simply done nothing of substance to further uphold the Federal policy regarding prayer and religious expression in public schools.
The response from Heather Weaver, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief hints at what the real motivation was for the Trump Administration. Ms. Weaver stated, “Government-funded programs, including those operated by faith-based organizations, should not be able to discriminate against vulnerable people seeking help.” Ms. Weaver was likely implying that religious groups were being targeted and courted by President Trump with the re – statement of this religion policy. A number of religious groups have tried to assert that their religious beliefs are under attack simply because they are not allowed to discriminate against people with different values from their own, such as LGBQT issues and persons. President Trump’s issuance of this policy then, even though it makes no substantive changes, appears nothing more than a political tactic aimed at securing more support from Christian and evangelist groups. It does not seem to be making any real headway into championing the concept of religious freedom. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Americans United For The Separation of Church and State (AU) – blog post criticizing President Trump’s Federal guidance regarding protected prayer and religious expression in public schools.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – press release from non – profit group on President Trump’s school prayer guidance.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Chris Liverani
Bulldozers back Trump’s rule changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
POLICY
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law in 1970 by President Nixon. Under NEPA, an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be completed for proposed construction and natural resource extraction projects in order to understand their environmental impacts. More stringent Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) may be requested by one or more federal agencies based upon the results of the original EA. The process provides for transparent public review and comment. The common timeframe to complete an EIS is 4.5 years – they average 600 pages in length.
The Trump administration has proposed new rules for NEPA. Those new rules include narrowing the range of major projects that require an EA and by shrinking the timeframe by which such studies are to be completed. The proposed rule changes would also eliminate the need for agencies to consider the “cumulative impacts” of projects. Furthermore, the environmental impacts must be “reasonably foreseeable” and have a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the project.
Furthermore, the new rules would consider each project separately, and avoid aggregating the effects of multiple projects similar in scope. For example, agencies could consider the public health effects of a new oil refinery without considering the three refineries that may already exist near a community. The number of projects exempt from NEPA review would expand by creating a new category for non-major projects, which would be exempt from regulatory review. Assessment would end for non-Federal projects that have minimal Federal funding or minimal Federal involvement such that the agency cannot control the outcome of the project.
Those in support of these rule changes, such as the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and labor unions, point to anticipated cost reductions and more rapid completion of federal projects. This is Trump’s most sweeping environmental proposal and is in line with scores of other environmental regulatory rollbacks this administration has introduced.
Overseeing NEPA is Mary B. Neumayr, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ); she wants to go further and allow corporations to prepare their own environmental reviews – these sensitive assessments are now prepared by federal agencies and outside consultants. This would build upon “categorical exclusions” now in place which often exclude EA’s from the clearcutting of national forests.
On the other side of the aisle, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says this rule change “Means more polluters will be right there next to the water supply of our children, and that is a public health issue.” Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a senior member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, says the rule changes prioritize polluters and corporations over the environment.
ANALYSIS
Nearly 70 lawsuits have been filed to date, challenging Trump’s environmental decrees. Richard L. Revesz, environmental law professor at New York University, said it’s unlikely this current, sweeping change to NEPA would hold up in court. The scope of the National Environmental Policy Act requires that all the environmental consequences of a project be taken into account – this proposed change to NEPA breaches that core requirement.
Under the revision, EAs will have a 75-page limit and 1 year to complete; EISs a 300-page limit and 2 years to complete. Even with the more streamlined reporting, agency staff may be reluctant to simplify the reviews in favor of speeding up projects.
Another change requires that those submitting comments must explain why the issue they raise is significant, reference specific pages of the draft EIS, and propose “specific changes.” The public comment element of NEPA provides for crucial input from ordinary citizens, those without technical or legal expertise. Community action under the new rules would be curtailed.
For example, when a crosstown parkway extension was proposed in Port St. Lucie, Florida, the communities’ vocal opposition ensured that project was located where it would result in the fewest possible residential relocations and no commercial relocations. In Washington State, it took two decades to finish environmental reviews for the runway at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. In North Carolina, it took 25 years to begin construction of the Marc Basnight Bridge.
We must also keep in mind that these rule changes apply only to federal oversight; many projects will still be subject to state environmental review and permitting laws, some of which may require more thorough assessments of environmental impacts than at the federal level. As well, the intention to compress the timeframe, may backfire due to lawsuits claiming inadequate reviews.
“One Federal Decision,” the streamline element to the proposal may be of benefit. It requires agencies to work closely together to promptly deliver a single decision by condensing the interagency review process and designating a lead agency.
Behind the scenes lobbyist Phil Cox of Building a Better America, says they plan to spend a minimum of $5 million in support. Alongside Cox, Senator John Hoeven, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, claims that “decades of clarifying regulations, judicial review and administrative directives have severely complicated the ability of states, localities and businesses’ to comply with the federal environmental review process.”
The original intent of the Act was and is to recognize and provide a process in considering the consequences of human disruption to the natural environment. Government agencies and the Courts must ultimately decide if projects are to proceed, and in what form. On the surface, these changes to NEPA aim to significantly lessen decision-making time and cost, and that, in and of itself can be beneficial; the underlying values though are harmful: they place short-term expansion and economic gain over sustainability goals.
Resistance Resources:
- http://westernpriorities.org/ advances responsible conservation and energy practices in the West.
- https://legal-planet.org/ provides insight and analysis on energy and environmental law and policy.
- https://www.southernenvironment.org/ uses the power of the law to champion the environment of the Southeast.
- https://environmentamerica.org/ a national network of 29 state environmental groups with members and supporters in every state.
Photo by Shane McLendon
More Restrictions are Set Up for SNAP Beneficiaries
The Policy
In early December, the Trump Administration proposed a final rule making work requirements stricter for those getting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This rule builds off the initial proposal mentioned in August.
Under SNAP’s current work requirements, able-bodied adults are not supposed to receive benefits for more than three months during a three-year period unless they have a job or are enrolled in education and training programs for 20 hours a week. Additionally, regulations stipulate states can waive the time limit of beneficiaries if the unemployment rate within the state was 20% above the national rate of unemployment.
The new rule moves the threshold of unemployment to 6%, meaning a state must have an unemployment rate higher than 6% to be permitted to waive the three-month limit. At the announcement of this rule, Alaska was the only state with an unemployment rate higher than 6% and therefore the only state qualifying for the waiver.
Nearly 700,000 adults are to be deemed ineligible for SNAP as the rule targets able-bodied adults between 18-49 years of age, without children or dependents. The estimated savings of no longer having these beneficiaries is nearly $5.5 billion over 5 years. This rule is set to go in effect April 1st, 2020; however, 14 states have banded together to challenge the attack on food security.
Analysis:
The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of attorneys generals across 14 states, is suing the Agricultural Department for its rule threatening hundreds of thousands. Main arguments are that the Administration unlawfully limited states’ discretion to exempt certain adults from work requirements. These restrictions are a continuation of Trump’s April 2018 executive order titled “Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility”, with a goal of creating more work programs, limiting overall public assistance, and reducing federal costs. However, the limiting of access will not increase employment, instead, it will increase hunger. This change denies vulnerable Americans acces to the vital SNAP benefits, this rule challenges their safety as the likely outcome of this rule will be an increase in economic uncertainty, health care costs, and hunger.
The groups who will be the most-hard hit are black and Hispanic households, women, and the LGBT+ community members.
The states that are suing are: California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.
Resistance Resources:
- CLASP : A national, nonpartisan, anti-poverty nonprofit advancing policy solutions for low-income people.
- Feeding America : A national organization whose goal is to provide food access to millions through food banks and food panties.
Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
Photo by NeONBRAND
Is the GDP an Obsolete Concept?
Analysis:
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been considered an overall barometer of a nation’s economic health since World War II. The concept for the GDP originated during the Great Depression in the work of a Russian born economist Simon Kuznets to estimate the total output of goods and services in a nation in a defined period of time. It was thought to be a measure of economic growth. As originally construed, it did not account for government spending, just the totality of goods and services in a society. Its current format is a modification initiated by John Maynard Keynes to include the vast government spending during WWII. He felt omitting government expenditures could make the economy appear to be stagnant or weak when in fact it was thriving, as it does in war time. His adaptation is still the formula in use today. Initial criticism of the measure dates to Robert Kennedy’s 1968 assertion that the GDP discounts “priceless” elements such as health, wellbeing, and education. Criticisms suggesting the obsolescence of the measure concern its lack of representation of unpaid labor as largely done in the home by women and other caretakers; its discounting of elements referring to the quality of life; and the advent of free knowledge and exchange on the internet.
Much unpaid labor is done in preparing food; caring for young and old; caring for the sick and others needing help; and generally maintaining the household by obtaining necessities and maintaining the home environment. Quality of life addresses issues of sustainability and environmental degradation; overall health and wellbeing; education; and income distribution. In a global economy, the impact of the Internet also impacts the wellbeing of its members in access to knowledge and markets.
The Bureau of Economic Affairs is working on an alternative measure which will include consideration of personal income; global trade; and the skills and education of workers. Other countries have been utilizing additional measures. Notable among these is India’s “Ease of Living Index”, which contains quality of life measures; economic ability; and sustainability. These things are important insomuch as they can have an impact on setting societal policies. New Zealand has developed a “wellbeing budget” to look at quality of life across the society. For example, they have added substantially to the mental health budget to address one of the highest recorded rates of youth suicide and gained apparent success. New Zealand has reduced suicides and incidents of family and sexual violence. One difficulty in their program, according to commentators, is the lack of concrete targets/goals for the factors they are measuring except in the area of child poverty but their program exhibits a “clear step away from purely growth-driven views of success (Goldsmith).
With the prevalence of a service economy where quality of service is essential, the GDP can be seen to have a limited scope when measuring economic stability in a society. The GDP no longer can be viewed as equaling national success and it is questionable whether it ever really did. It may have served as a gross measure of production in a manufacturing economy, a system which has been progressively eroding.
Learn More
- https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being
- https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2020/01/14/795623755/moving-beyond-gdp
- https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/why-gdp-is-no-longer-the-most-effective-measure-of-economic-success
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ An organization treating people with no access to health care; victims of natural disasters; epidemics; and conflicts in 80 countries.
- https://www.conservation.org/ An organization protecting the environment, biodiversity, and human communities.
Photo by Fabian Blank
Trump’s 3 Million Dollar Iran Problem
Policy Summary:
After Iran attacked Iraqi bases that house U.S. forces with missiles and only a few, short days after the Trump administration assassinated Qasem Soleimani, a high-ranking military commander, the president addressed the nation. Trump began his speech, with “As long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” The President also confirmed that there were no American deaths due to the attacks and only “minimal” damage to the bases. He also said Iran “appears to be standing down.”
Shortly thereafter, Iran stated that several individuals were apprehended in regard to the Islamic Republic’s firing down of a Ukrainian jetliner killing all 176 people on board, earlier this month. Although, Iran admitted to the demise of the aircraft, due to intense international pressure, the president of Iran still attributed “root causes” of the attack were U.S. actions. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said, “It was the US that caused such an incident to take place.” The Iranian regime has accused the U.S.’s administration for straining relations with the assassination of senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani on January 2nd, in Baghdad. Most recently, this Tuesday, Ahmad Hamzeh, an Iranian legislator, offered a three million dollar bounty to “anyone who kills” US President Donald Trump in retaliation for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.
Analysis:
The assassination of General Qassem Suleimani has crippled the Trump Administration’s priorities in much of the Middle East. The assasination of Suleimani will come with numerous ramifications for the area’s international relations, military balance in the region, the ongoing battle against islamic extremist groups and Iran’s nuclear program. The Iraqi parliament has decided to have five thousand U.S. troops removed from the country. Nearly two decades following the United States’ invasion, the status of American troops is quickly no longer secure. Soon after, Baghdad requested a plan for withdrawal from the Trump Administration.
The Trump Administration’s has to consider how this will impact relations with Iran. After decades of U.S. leaders attempting to broker the Iran nuclear deal, curbing Tehran’s nuclear program for a projected 25 years, the plan may be in shambles. International tensions have increased dramatically since Trump pulled out of the nuclear accord and imposed overwhelming US sanctions. In response, Iran has gradually moved back from their initial agreements and compromises to the deal. A mere two days after the assassination of Suleimani, Iran stated they would no longer abide to a limitation in the number of centrifuges for enriching uranium.
The three-million-dollar death threat hanging over Trump’s head was announced on Tuesday evening. American disarmament ambassador Robert Wood dismissed the reward as “ridiculous”, telling reporters in Geneva it showed the “terrorist underpinnings” of Iran’s establishment.”(Read more here) Hamzeh has accredited the bounty he declared on Trump’s head as one of Iran’s last choices after the Iran Nuclear Deal left the country without nuclear weapons. “If we had nuclear weapons today, we would be protected from threats. … We should put the production of long-range missiles capable of carrying unconventional warheads on our agenda,” Hamzeh told the parliament, according to ISNA. “This is our natural right.” Hamzeh’s statements were declared after the United Kingdom, Germany, and France began considering possible sanctions to be re-imposed on Iran if the nation persists in moving away from the international nuclear deal. “We have therefore been left with no choice, given Iran’s actions, but to register today our concerns that Iran is not meeting its commitments,” the foreign ministers of the three countries had written in a letter to the European Union’s foreign policy chief.
Engagement Resources:
- Peace Action works for smarter approaches to global problems, addressing problems like war, the nuclear threat, poverty, climate change, and terrorism. The organization believes the U.S. needs to work together, cooperatively, with other nations.
- Peace Spirit Foundation is a civil society organization which has been working for 13 years. Their main goal is to attempt to bring peace to Iran.
- Ploughshares Fund has supported the most effective people and organizations in the world to reduce and eventually eliminate the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. Sign their petition urging Congress to stand up against war with Iran here
This brief was compiled by Erin Mayer. This brief was compiled by Erin Mayer. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact ErinMayer@USResistnews.org
Photo by Omid Armin
Has The Equal Rights Amendment Been Ratified And Added To The U.S. Constitution?
Policy Summary: On January 15, 2020, the Virginia State Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The Senate voted to approve by a 28 – 12 vote while the House of Delegates voted 59 – 41 to approve the amendment. With ratification by both houses of the Virginia State Legislature proponents of the ERA claimed that Virginia became the 38th state to approve the constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires that after approval by Congress, three – fourths of the states is required to approve a constitutional amendment. Virginia’s approval as the 38th state to ratify would seem to indicate that the requisite three – fourths threshold has been met. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The time period issue and the withdrawal of approval undertaken by a number of states have complicated the process of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). ERA opponents claim that the time period for approval instituted by Congress makes any approval by a state after 1982 invalid. They claim that the three states that approved the amendment after 1982 have never been valid and the number of states approving the amendment remains at thirty – five.
Additionally, a joint lawsuit filed in December 2019 by the attorney generals of Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota sought to prevent certification by the archivist of the United States, the final step in making a constitutional amendment official. Their reasoning was that five states that had originally ratified the amendment had subsequently voted to rescind their ratification. Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Dakota voted to rescind, which their lawsuit claims reduces the number of states who have voted to approve the amendment. Based on these arguments, Virginia’s approval would only make it the thirty – first (31st) or the thirty – sixth (36th) state to approve depending on the count being used. The issue of whether a state can vote to rescind their approval after having originally voted to approve an amendment appears to be a legal issue that is headed to the courts for determination. The fate of the Equal Rights Amendment has wide support but the validity and future of the amendment still hangs in the balance. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) – webpage with info on the status of the ERA.
National Organization for Women (NOW) – women’s advocacy group containing info on the ERA and other issues.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Nick Fewings
The Expanding Reach of Facial Technology – Has the Trump Executive Order Released a Monster?
Policy Summary
Executive Order 13769, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States issued in the first days of the Trump presidency, called for the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States. To date this system has been implemented at 15 major airports and points of entry with a goal of 21 by 2021. This expanded deployment by Customs and Border Patrol has heralded an explosion of the technology’s usage by other agencies particularly law enforcement which are taking advantage of faster computers, better algorithms and more images to compare against in an ever-growing database of images.
The adoption of these tools has raised questions about their accuracy and citizen privacy. Municipalities such as San Francisco and the Boston suburbs of Brookline and Somerville have banned their use by agencies under their control.
Analysis
Biometric facial recognition software reads the geometry of your face; the distance between your eyes, distinguishing characteristics like moles or birthmarks, the shape of your nose, some systems will define up to 68 different characteristics and convert this into a digital signature. This signature can be compared against existing databases that have already been processed; FBI mug shots, passport photos, terrorism watch lists and compared for matches. With the explosion in procesing power this can be accomplished while standing in an arrivals or departures terminal in an airport.
The technology has many uses beyond screening people entering or leaving the country and preventing undesirables from traveling. Police departments can identify suspects by photos from surveillance cameras or bystander photos. Merchants can identify known shoplifters before they steal anything. Sexual predators can be removed from the mall before they even enter. Conceivably this could replace or supplement drivers licenses, photo IDs or even library cards.
Here’s where things get interesting. In our personal frenzy to partake in social media and digitally document every aspect of our lives, we have voluntarily uploaded billions of photos of ourselves, our families and friends with accompanying personal information; names, locations, dates and associations. Whereas organization like DHS are committed only to using federally authorized databases like passport and FBI photos, other organizations are not similarly constrained. The New York Times on January 19, 2020 reported on a startup called Clearview AI that has created and marketed an app and database that not only searches public photo records but Facebook, YouTube, Venmo and millions of other websites. Facial recognition works best when there are more images to compare against. A single image can produce a false positive. Verifying against multiple images make false positives less likely.
In a previous USResist News post, congressional legislative efforts to curtail abuses of this technology were explored. These efforts have been limited to law enforcement agencies and have, regardless, fallen short in the Senate. Without direction on the national level it seems clear that other entrepreneurs will seize the opportunity to monetize and weaponize this technology assembling ever larger sources of video and photographic data to further the accuracy of searches.
Banning the technology will not stop its use but regulating how companies can build their databases might provide an avenue to contain abuse.
Resistance Resources
- The Markula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University has prepared a report Facial Recognition Technology An Ethics Case Study that explores the ethical considerations for biometric facial recognition
- The American Civil Liberties Union is leading the fight to curb abuses of Biometic screening.
- 30 diverse organizations that believes that facial recognition poses a threat to human society and basic liberty that far outweighs any potential benefits.have banded together in com to present a compelling argument for regulation
Photo by Andy Lee
Ohio Anti – Abortion Bill Proposes an Impossible Procedure and Creates New Crimes
The Policy
In late November, Ohio House Bill 413 was proposed by Representatives Candice Keller and Ron Hood, raising concern amongst reproductive rights activists and doctors. The bill mandates doctors to re-implant ectopic pregnancy or face “abortion murder” charges. An ectopic pregnancy is when a fertilized egg implants and grows outside of the uterus, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. Such a pregnancy is not viable and requires emergency treatment due to potentially fatal ruptures and hemorrhages. This bill is requiring that a doctor take the embryo that is in an inhabitable space, without a possibility or survival, and place it into the uterus with the impossible expectation that the egg makes it to full term. Such a procedure is not possible.
Within the bill, were newly created crimes “abortion murder”, which is punishable by life imprisonment, and “aggravated abortion murder” resulting in the death penalty for doctors who terminate a pregnancy. Those also at risk include women and children as young as thirteen to be charged with “abortion murder” for receiving an abortion, a crime punishable by 15 years to life.
There is no exception for instances of rape or incest. According to the bill, someone who obtains an abortion can only avoid punishment by proving they were “compelled by force, fear, duress, intimidation, or fraud to get an abortion” and have filed a police report certifying in writing the previous qualifications. The bill has 19 co-sponsors, a fifth of Ohio’s House.
HB 413 builds off House Bill 182, sponsored by John Baker in April, whose main goal was to limit insurance coverage for abortion procedures. 413 includes the prohibition of coverage for medication and devices that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, notably intrauterine devices (IUDs). However, the previously mentioned treatment that simply does not exist, re-adhering an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus, is covered by insurance.
Analysis:
Outside of the egregious encroachment on the liberty of reproductive rights, this proposed procedure simply is not possible. Standard procedure for an ectopic pregnancy is removal of the fertilized egg from the inhabitable space, often the fallopian tube, before it creates life-threatening complications for the mother. The bill is asking for the impossible, there simply is no procedure for such an idea. Now while many will say countless surgical procedures were thought to be impossible until someone tried, but doctors have tried. It is a complex, incredibly dangerous, and ineffective procedure, often resulting in the mother suffering severe complications. This concern for women’s safety and the proposed procedure’s efficacy were highlighted by numerous obstetricians, gynecologists and researchers when the bill was first announced. The penalty faced by doctors places them in a predicament to both violate the Hippocratic oath and create a miracle, if they would like to avoid jailtime or death. Additionally, the insurance component will threaten the willingness of providers to cover procedures and will ultimately limit coverage for women.
Both HB 182 and 413 spread misinformation regarding a dangerous, life threatening condition affecting pregnant women and about general reproductive health. The notion that this condition is not as complicated and can be solved by simply moving an egg to the “right” place, is a severe minimization. Additionally, the language within the bill has been criticized as it repeatedly defines a fertilized egg as an unborn child, which it is not. Such language and misinformation are dangerous for women and the future of reproductive rights.
While the bill very well could pass, it is blatantly unconstitutional and would most certainly be challenged in the courts, just as the six-week abortion ban known as the “heartbeat bill” was, and will never go into effect. With Roe v. Wade still in effect, HB 413 does not stand a chance. However, should one of the recent anti-abortion bills make its way to the Supreme Court, they pose a severe risk to the landmark case with the current conservative judges in place.
Engagement Resources:
- Planned Parenthood : Reproductive rights advocacy group that provided affordable and accessible health services to women across the US.
- National Abortion Federation : Advocacy group which respects women’s ability to make informed decisions about her reproductive health.
- ACLU of Ohio : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- Center for Reproductive Rights : Legal group ensuring the protection of reproductive rights for every woman around the world.
- Naral : A pro-choice women’s organization with a chapter in Ohio.
Photo by Chris Boese
Impeachment Trial Preview
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet open with a proclamation on the first page that the titular characters must die. The reader knows the pair will meet their demise by story’s end before it begins. That doesn’t make the play insignificant or not worth reading. Donald J. Trump will still be the president of the United States at the conclusion of the forthcoming trial in the Senate. Though not quite as certain as the fates of the fictional Veronans, it is a virtual lock. What occurs in Congress’ upper chamber between now and then will have serious ramifications in the long- and short-term political landscape of the United States. Before the trial commences, there remain several points of importance to determine.
To This Point
Congress spent the last week getting their proverbial ducks in a row for the trial. Chief Justice John Roberts and the 100 Senators serving as the jury swore an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help [them] God.” The oath is a toothless formality as a number of Senators have already stated they intend to break it. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham for instance is ‘’not trying to pretend to be an impartial juror.’’ Regardless, the trial is set to begin ‘’in earnest’’ on Tuesday according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Democrats have tabbed Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler Zoe Lofgren and several others as House Managers. Schiff will serve as lead manager, whose function is to present the case for impeachment before the Senate.
Trump’s defense team consists of White House counsel Pat Cippilone, his personal attorney Jay Sekulow, former Clinton investigator Ken Starr and Constitutional Lawyer Alan Dershowitz. His legal team responded to a summons issued by McConnell Saturday, calling it ‘’highly partisan and reckless. “They also repeated the assertion made many times by Republicans in the House proceedings that the impeachment is an ‘’brazen attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.’’ However, the trial plays out, viewers can expect it to be rife with partisan contention.
Trial format
The Constitution provides little guidance on the manner in which an impeachment trial should take place. Like most aspects of the impeachment inquiry to date, little can be agreed on across party lines concerning how the trial will be handled. Upon the initial vote to impeach, a number of Republican Senators called for a dismissal before the Articles were transmitted to the Senate. A simple majority of 51 votes would have been required to end the trial before it began. Mitch McConnell and others of that position have acknowledged that the votes aren’t there for such a dismissal. As a result, Donald Trump will have his day(s) in court, beginning on Tuesday.
Whether or not to call witnesses remains a considerable bone of contention between the opposing sides. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Sunday he planned to force a vote on the issue at the trial’s outset. A number of Republican Senators have voiced opposition to calling witnesses, ostensibly in the name of an expedited trial. R- John Cornyn of Texas suggested that if the case is ‘’rock solid’’ as its been described by D- Jerry Nadler, then they should be able to make it without calling additional witnesses. Democrats maintain that calling witnesses is the only way to ensure a fair and thorough trial.
The historical precedent is mixed. Witnesses were not called to testify in the trial of Bill Clinton but did provide testimony in the trial of Andrew Johnson. In each case the substance of the offenses was relatively well known by both parties involved. Clinton had an extramarital affair and lied about it. Andrew Johnson fired his war secretary, shortly after Congress had passed an act preventing him from doing so. In this instance Trump has been repeatedly linked to the scheme to withhold military assistance from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on his political rival. However, his culpability has not been proven to the satisfaction of his supporters in the House or Senate, likely because he’s prevented anyone who could directly implicate him from testifying under oath. It is for this reason that witnesses must be allowed to testify to ensure that the trial, if not the verdict, is fair and comprehensive.
Also, at issue is whether recent developments will be allowed as evidence. Namely, the GAO report finding the Trump administration violated the law by withholding said funds, and Lev Parnas’ accusations placing Trump at the heart of the scandal.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a non-partisan agency that works for Congress. Its function is to examine how tax dollars are spent and provide reports on how to operate efficiently. On Thursday the office released a report finding that the Trump administration had violated the law by freezing the aid to Ukraine previously approved by Congress. The sole power of the purse rests with Congress. It is the job of the executive branch to faithfully execute Congressionally allocated funds. No holds may be placed on such money to further the policy agenda of a president. The GAO concluded that Trump and the Office of Management and Budget violated the law. Delays or revisions (permanent cuts) may be made in certain circumstances, but the burden to justify them rests solely with the OMB. In the event a hold is placed on previously allocated money, OMB must transmit a specific message to Congress explaining the decision. No such attempt was made, and accordingly the GAO found the OMB to have violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The ICA was adopted into law in 1974 in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach. Its purpose is to prevent a president from unilaterally substituting his own preferences in favor of those voted on by Congress. All available evidence suggests Trump and those in his orbit committed a brazen violation of the ICA.
Lev Parnas is an intriguing character whose involvement in the trial is a yet to be determined. The associate of Rudy Giuliani was arrested in October of last year, charged with campaign finance violations and subsequently volunteered to testify before Congress.
From the allegations against him and his own admission, Parnas played an integral role in Trump’s effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. Last week he appeared on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow and made a number of explosive allegations tying Trump to the pay-for-play scheme. He stated ‘’Trump knew what was going on’’ and that all of his efforts were coordinated with the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Parnas claimed to have met with top Ukrainian officials, who knew he was speaking on Trump’s behalf and informed them that all American aid was contingent upon announcement of investigations into Joe Biden. In the same interview Parnas pointed fingers at Congressman R- Devin Nunes, his aide Derek Harvey and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry for their involvement.
Parnas is a shadowy figure with legitimate credibility issues. However, he has confirmed a number of disputed points from the impeachment inquires and provides answers to lingering questions about the withholding of aid to Ukraine. An impeachment trial without any input from Parnas would be a deliberate obfuscation of justice.
Donald Trump in all probability will be still be president at the conclusion of the Senate Trial. The Republicans most likely and shamefully will acquit him.
Learn More:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
Photo by Michael Ramey